Talk:Murder of James Bulger/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Date of death

There are a load of references all over the UK media quoting a date of 13th February for the abduction - and therefore also for the murder, which is generally agreed to have been the same day. These seem to be stories which are dated recently, i.e. stories about Venables being sent back to prison. See the list that I have added on the Welsh language article. There are also a number of references out there to 12th February. As these tend to be earlier references I believe them more, but it's hard to tell with certainty. So be aware that not everything that is backed up by a news story reference will necessarily be correct. It is very disappointing that the media can't be bothered to check their facts, as I'd have thought that this is a minimum of respect due to the family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Y ddraig felen (talk • contribs) 13:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. HonouraryMix (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The CCTV footage of the abduction is date stamped with the 12th. His body was found on the 14th. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It's weird that even the BBC has managed to get confused over this. Although the vast majority of BBC web pages say 12 February 1993 (eg here), they give it as 13 February here, as have a lot of the March 2010 stories. 12 February is correct, unless anyone disagrees.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Protection

Can the page be protected?

Information breaking the injunction was posted - which has been permanently deleted from the edit history by admins - but it could obviously happen again Dvmedis (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection would not stop a determined person. The article needs constant watching at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there a consensus of where the injunction stands in relation to applicable laws in the United States? The circumstances of the privacy dispute involving Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber lead to their names being published and remaining in the English-language Wikipedia. I believe United States law applies in this case, as it did in the case in Germany. If it hasn't already happened, multiple experts need to review this material to ascertain which laws are applicable in this circumstance. --Xaliqen (talk) 12:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

We are no more bound by an injunction from Zanu Labor then we are by the anti-gay censorship laws of Muslim countries. 72.209.63.226 (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian quotes the Ministry of Justice as saying there's a worldwide injunction [1]. Of course, I don't know how legit that claim is! matt (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The "worldwide injunction" claim is frankly nonsense. The UK government cannot guarantee that the foreign media will not publish the names (see Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber for a similar case involving this issue). From Wikipedia's point of view, if someone said that Venables' new identity was John X, it would have to be removed because it could be wrong or an attempt at violating privacy. Nobody with any sense wants to encourage the pitchfork and noose brigade with regard to Thompson and Venables.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with IanMacM - even if Wikipedia isn't bound by the injunction - the content isn't relevant and common sense dictates it would be 'dangerous' and irresponsible for it to be published. You might find that the US, European Union and other 'Western' countries are bound by the injunction - possibly some sort of 'agreement' between the nations to honor each others procedures. I still believe a Semi-protect would be a good idea, as vandalism could easily occur with this article (especially after today's tabloid stories)- but either way I will be watching closely for risky vandalism. If anybody spots anything which should be removed even from the edit history, report it using this link :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_oversight Dvmedis (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Exactly. Whether or not the names are published by the media in the future, we should independently assess the merits of including them, and whether doing so would violate WP:BLP. It would take a large discussion before we decided to add them. Either way, it's hypothetical at the moment as nothing is verified.

As for protection, I don't think there's enough vandalism to justify it at the moment. Yes, there was one case of oversight, but the offending material could easily have been added by an autoconfirmed user – meaning only full protection could have stopped it.

Anyway – I feel that this thread is forking off from the #New names section above, and think any further discussion of the names should continue there. matt (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Names of criminals, even those who have changed their names are on articles on a ROUTINE basis. The dictat of a lame-duck socialist government of an island monarchy have ZERO effect on the Free World. If a reliable source for the new names is found it will be added to the article just as it was in the German case. 72.209.63.226 (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia policy that will guide what is (or is not) added to the article. We should judge each case independently (I'm only just reading the German case) but there's clearly no consensus one way or another for this article, so no – if a reliable source is found for the names they will not be added to the article (without community discussion). matt (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There is little point in soapboxing about the freedom of speech issue (which we all agree on) when other issues are involved. After the Murder of Sarah Payne, there was widespread disorder on some UK housing estates, with self-appointed vigilantes attacking alleged "paedos", eg here. The Bulger case has the potential to do the same, so any attempt to name individuals - correctly or not - will lead to WP:OVERSIGHT.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

New names

Why are the murderers new names not in the article? Surely those of us living outside of the Orwellian Socialist "United" Kingdom are not bound by their Stalinistic suppresion of speech laws? 72.209.63.226 (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Er, you do know Orwell was a socialist, don't you?77.99.151.39 (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The names could be printed in Scotland and southern Ireland. (92.3.255.203 (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC))

Media reports disagree as to the scope of the ban on publishing the details. Jim Michael (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The new names could be published anywhere outside England and Wales. If "The Sun" or "The Daily Mail" knew the names they would publish them anyway and risk going to court because it would be in the public interest. (92.3.255.203 (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC))

I don't think that we should publish then names just because Wikipedia isn't bound by UK law. WP:BLPNAME states that we must consider whether adding them would bring significant value. I think that the points raised at Talk:Death of Baby P/Archive 1#Name and Talk:Death of Baby P/Archive 1#Inclusion of names? are particularly relevant. In one comment in the latter, Mayalld says that "the names have no real information content, because the facts of the case are the same, regardless of the names of the individuals. They do have a value, in terms of readability, because we are used to seeing names in articles discussing people, and the absence of names makes it more difficult to write prose that reads easily". In the case of this article, Venables and Thompson will always be referred to as their names at the time of the crime – so the point regarding the "absence of names" is not relevant. matt (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

With the hyped-up emotions, being fed by the tabloid media, in the UK at the moment, releasing the names is very likely to lead to Venables' and Thompson's lives being put at risk through vigilantism - and even worse, the lives of innocent young men mistakenly believed to be them. Not something I would want on my conscience. Regards Lynbarn (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Nonesense. The same could be said of many Wikipedia articles. If the names are available they need to be posted. 72.209.63.226 (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Save for the fact that starting off your request by talking about how you think the UK is some Stalinist state (what does that have to do with anything), my opinion is we don't publish the names unless they've become saturated into the British media. We absolutely shouldn't publish names which haven't been confirmed, or which only a few papers as yet have picked up on. We're not under UK law, but we still have a responsibility as a public encyclopaedia not to fuel a backlash. HonouraryMix (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree. We're not obliged to include the names (even if they're saturated into the media), especially if it could be deemed as a WP:BLP violation. I don't believe that including the names would improve the article much – as I said before, I'm sure the two boys will always be referred to as Venables and Thompson. Whether Wikipedia is governed by the injunction or not, we still have a duty to follow WP:BLP. matt (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that the names become relevant if there is any substantiation to a violation of parole and what that might entail vis-a-vis potential victims. While it's premature to speculate on the issue of substantiation in relation to these recent rumours, it's also in everyone's best interest to remember that differences of opinion should be settled according to WP policy with the goal of utilising a compromise or consensus whenever possible. In addition, relevant laws should be respected while also recognising that Wikipedia ultimately answers to United States regulations and applicable law. If we could get an expert on the subject to review the situation, then we would all probably be better off. --Xaliqen (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Vigilance

Venables's supposed new identity is all over Twitter right now, I think we need to be vigilant here at Wikipedia. Obviously I'm not going to post the rumour, but a quick search of Twitter is all it takes to find out what we should be watching for. matt (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Just seen this, could be right, could be wrong. Twitter is one of the obvious places where the name could be published, and the Home Office is probably resigned to this happening eventually.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Child's Play 3

Since the case is back in the news again, it is a good time to put to rest the tired old tabloid cliché that the killers were inspired by Child's Play 3. This was rejected by Merseyside Police and the Home Office, but it did not stop the tabloids from having a field day calling for the film to be banned.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The Moral Panic source is not ideal, but it does have an image of a contemporary copy of The Sun, which urges "For the sake of ALL our kids... BURN YOUR VIDEO NASTY". The tabloids developed a bee in their bonnet about this film, even though no evidence was produced that the killers watched it. Like A Clockwork Orange some twenty years earlier, the film became a scapegoat for all manner of ills that it did not cause.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

One of the interesting new pieces of information to emerge during the current round of coverage is that the 10 year old Venables apparently produced a drawing inspired by the 1978 film Halloween, of which he said:"In my dads I saw howowen is when you a girl and this man and he kiled people especial girls and he has got a mask on that he robed knifes out the shop and the police that it was plce but it was not it was the man." [2] Ironically, the fuss about Child's Play 3 eclipsed this far more relevant aspect of the case. This is something that could be mentioned in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sunday Mirror child porn claim

The problem here is that all of the stories mentioning this are repeating a claim in today's Sunday Mirror.[3] It looks good, but several paragraphs down they WP:Weasel out with "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." No evidence is provided that he is facing child porn charges, and today's Observer reports: "An injunction was issued against the Sun newspaper on Friday night to prevent it from printing a story detailing Venables's alleged offences".[4]. Since the UK government is determined to keep shtum on all of this at the moment, unconfirmed off the record briefings are not a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What we have are reliable sources reporting a claim made in the Sunday Mirror - it is not up to us to decide if the claim is true or not, we reflect neutrally and fully what reliable sources are reporting. This claim is significant and has attracted attention of the world's media - of course we put it in the article. WP:NOTCENSORED and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view are the policies that govern this. "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." SilkTork *^YES! 10:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, but since this story broke on Tuesday, the tabloids have given at least four reasons why he was recalled to prison (fight at workplace, drink/drugs, visiting nightclubs in Liverpool, child porn). None of these has been confirmed, and the first three were removed on WP:V grounds. The child porn claim is the most controversial yet, and it is no more reliable than the others. I have a feeling that other users will be determined to add the child porn claim, although it has major sourcing issues.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) NPOV is not relevant here. This "claim" doesn't fall under "significant views that have been published by reliable sources" - firstly, it's not a "significant view", it's a rumour from one source. Secondly, it's not "published by reliable sources", it's published by one source that is clearly unreliable in this instance. Yes, other sources report the fact of that reporting, but they don't assert the truth of it themselves. - Pontificalibus (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The claim is reported on the BBC, and The Telegraph. We have some of the most respected reliable sources reporting this - it is precisely because I heard that claim on the BBC this morning that I came to this article, and Wikipedia's silence on the issue is inappropriate. It would be wrong of us to report it as a fact, but to report it as a claim by the Sunday Mirror (as the media are doing) is right and proper. SilkTork *^YES! 11:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

People often ask "Why does Michael Jackson not say that he converted to Islam?" The answer is that despite being reported many times, it all comes back to a single unconfirmed story in The Sun in November 2008.[5] Repeating this type of story elsewhere does not improve its truth value, which is why caution is needed with the Venables child porn claim.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

We are not saying it is true, we are reflecting the speculation that has attracted the attention of reliable sources. It is part of what we do as an encyclopedia, and what we are good at. People will read or hear that Venables is accused of a sex crime, one that the Sunday Times says carries a two year sentence, and will expect such a major accusation to be included in an article on the case. Suppressing such a widely reported claim is not in anyone's interest, and is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. SilkTork *^YES! 11:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It was inevitable that the media would go into overdrive with the Sunday Mirror's child porn claim. Not having seen the evidence on which they based it, it is hard to say how reliable it is. Normally there would be WP:BLP issues with a poorly sourced claim as controversial as this, but if the BBC reports it, it is not a secret. Although the Mirror claim has been removed before, eg here, I'm not going to spend all day in an edit war.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Perspective is important here. Wikipedia is not supposed to be an extension of live news or the tabloid media. Simply repeating unsupported claims unthinkingly is what gets Wiki a bad name. The media have claimed at least four different reasons for Venables' recall to prison. By definition, most (and why not all?) are wrong. Citing any more claims before a definitive answer is given by the authorities seems to be inviting the inevitability of publishing things which are inaccurate or plain untrue. Which is more important for an encyclopedia - being quick, or being right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BearAllen (talk • contribs) 01:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM deals with this. Current affairs are properly dealt with by Wikinews, although Google redirects queries here in preference. You are entirely correct that Wikipedia should take a more sanguine and longer-term view, but many of our editors don't understand the difference between a news service and an encyclopedia, and that's ignoring those with an axe to grind. The short version is that an encyclopedia should report established facts, not breaking news, and certainly not poorly-sourced tabloid rumours. Rodhullandemu 01:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The Times is pretty assertive in their claim on the subject.[6] At some point, issues attaining a sustained widespread presence in established media should be addressed within the article. Whether the particular threshold for inclusion has been surpassed at this point is, of course, up for debate. --Xaliqen (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia with your hands on the keyboard and your eyes on the television rolling news channels often leads to a range of problems. To repeat, the tabloids have given at least four reasons why Venables was recalled to prison, and none is confirmed. Even if the child porn claim is correct - which we don't know - repeating it loudly could prejudice any future trial, as Ed Balls pointed out. The media coverage of this story has itself become a talking point, and there may be further bumpy patches for Wikipedia ahead if the case goes to court. Regardless of how high profile the case is, WP:BLP will still apply.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

My point still stands. The Times is by no means a tabloid and neither is the BBC. I didn't add anything to the article, merely stated that addressing the issue may become important if persistence in established media continues. --Xaliqen (talk) 09:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• The Sun claims today that Category 4 child pornography was found on Venables' laptop.[7]. This is described as "Images showing serious or violent sexual acts between children, or adults and children." Per the above comments, if this is added to the article, it will be removed. This is too serious to be mentioned in the article without a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there is some undue concern here. While the Sunday Mirror and The Sun may be in violation of a law, Wikipedia, the BBC, the Telegraph, The Guardian, etc, are not. We reflect neutrally and without judgement notable facts that are supported by reliable sources - we do not cherry pick, and we do not suppress. We have multiple reliable sources for the claim made by the Sunday Mirror; and Jack Straw has announced today that he might confirm what's "already out in the newspapers". That statement needs the detail of what is "already out in the newspapers". BLP concerns deal with poor quality sources, we have very high quality sources, including the BBC. SilkTork *^YES! 14:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The Sun and the Mirror were determined to publish the child porn claim, despite the obvious pressure from the government not to do it. They have forced Jack Straw's hand, and now we'll have to wait to see what he says.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes - we cannot second guess what details he is going to confirm, and we have to ensure the article remains balanced and neutral - though ITV said yesterday that they can confirm what the Sunday Mirror printed, and all the media (who are aware of the facts) have been quick to report on the allegation in a non-dismissive manner. The government's concern is that Venables will escape trial as under court rules it would be difficult to protect Venables' identity in a trial, and so the jury would be aware of his past crime, and may be biased. As a biased trial is not permissible, Venables would not be tried. However, child pornography is an either way offence, and so - if that is the offence - he could be tried at a Magistrate's court as that is within the jurisdiction of the magistrates. SilkTork *^YES! 14:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Had this been any other case, the Sun and the Mirror could have faced contempt of court over this issue. On Friday night, the government reportedly took out an injunction against The Sun.[8] Some media legal experts say that a new fair trial is already impossible, and that he should simply be returned to custody for violating the terms of his licence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"In popular culture"

It is best for Wikipedia articles to avoid the dreaded "In popular culture" section. These were removed:

• The Law & Order Season 10 episode entitled "Killerz" is partially based on some aspects of the Bulger murder, as well as the Mary Bell case.

• Boy A is a 2004 novel later adapted as a film that details the release and attempted re-integration into society of a British child criminal.

Killerz seems to be only tangentially inspired by the case [9], as is Boy A. The two examples that remain in the article are directly relevant and reliably sourced.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Legal proceedings

Why was this case held in an adult court? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.158.48.162 (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"At that time, children aged between 10 and 14 could be tried for criminal behaviour in the UK only if the prosecution could prove the offender had known what he or she was doing was seriously wrong, not just naughty or mischievous. In the Bulger case, prosecutors successfully did this, allowing Venables and Thompson to be tried as adults. Five years later, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 abolished the presumption that children under 14 did not know the difference between right and wrong, leaving England and Wales with a de facto age of criminal responsibility of 10 - one of the lowest in the western world." [10]. SilkTork *^YES! 14:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Alleged identity of Venables

Re this edit. Since it has been going around Twitter and the message boards all day, we might as well be open about it. This claim was reported and denied in the Blackpool Gazette in September 2005: [11]. Put away the baseball bats, folks, this is Internet misinformation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

See this. The poor guy has been attacked before and it's proven he has nothing to do with the accused.--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The Twitter mob was feeling very pleased with itself after busting the Trafigura superinjunction. This shows that the potential for serious ****-ups is very real. It's just as well that there was no 24/7 blogging at the time of the original Bulger trial in 1993, because it could have collapsed very easily with this sort of thing going on.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Remember the paediatrician in Wales who was mistaken for a paedophile during the weeks following the Murder of Sarah Payne? [12] How little times change.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who first said "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups" but the same goes for those who are blinded by anger. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Some WP:OR here: This Facebook page is typical of the sort of thing that would happen (and Wikipedia would have to deal with) if Venables faced a new trial. Cringe-making stuff indeed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Prejudicial reports

If anybody has good material on the subject of prejudicial reports, the article Prejudice (legal procedure) is in serious need of a section describing it. (For longer request, see Talk:Prejudice (legal procedure)). There are a couple of sentences in this article that could do with a wikilink to a more detailed article since [I gather] it is a concept unfamiliar to other parts of the world. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

History of, or psychological information on, the killers?

Has there ever been any information given out on how the killers turned out the way they did? And I'm not talking about that tabloid rubbish about "video nasties". If those were as potent as the tabloids made them out to be, this case wouldn't be nearly so unique. There must have been some serious social and psychological factors at play for two 10-year-olds to torture and murder a 2-year-old. There's no such thing as people who are "just evil". It seems a case as disturbing as this would have a lot to teach about how to prevent potentially troubled children turning out the way Thompson and Venables did, and yet the only lessons I hear people taking away from this is how sentencing needs to be tougher (i.e. shutting the gate after the horse has bolted). So has this information ever been published or was it all classified? To be honest, given the frankly bizarre idea of trying them in an adult court (profoundly evil crimes do not make a child an adult, mental development does), I'm half wondering if anybody in that court even bothered to bring up the subject of mental health. Midnight Bliss (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There would certainly have been psychiatric assessments carried out (by the defence, at least) to investigate possible defences of diminished responsibility, but since the finding of guilt was for murder, obviously not persuasive. Any reports within the penal system would not have been made public, and I doubt permission would have been given for external research. So all we can possibly have is speculation, which we would not be able to use here. Rodhullandemu 17:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The current story about Halloween is interesting [13], but it says that the drawing may not have been shown to the jury.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a detailed psychiatric report on Venables dating from August 2000 in today's Times.[14] This was commissioned prior to his release, so it does not deal with the issues at the time of the trial in 1993.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"Thompson and Venables" or "Venables and Thompson"?

The current version of the article is inconsistent. At the trial, they were referred to as 'Child A' (Thompson) and 'Child B' (Venables), possibly for reasons of simple alphabetical order. There has also been an assumption that Thompson was the "leader", although the verdict made clear that they were both equally involved. Either way, the article should strive for consistency in the naming convention.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree we need consistency, but not sure how to decide the order. The "mug shot" photos have Venables on the left, and Venables was born before Thompson. However, as you said the trial listed Thompson first. I'm happy either way, though. matt (talk) 11:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The trial order is probably a good precedent. That's the one I would use. --Xaliqen (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

CCTV timing

The wording here is confusing: "This moment was captured on a CCTV camera at 15:39 (this reference states the time as 15:42). CCTV: Does it work?. The BBC News report shows the video time stamped at 15:42, but no citation is given for the 15:39 figure. Was it subsequently determined that the time stamp was wrong? Citation needed here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sexual element of the crime

Re: this edit, which suggested that the sexual aspect of the crime was a "false rumour". A good deal of care went into adding this to the article. It is clearly sourced at [15] and [16], but was not widely reported at the time. The batteries were placed in Bulger's mouth, not anus as given in an e-mail urban legend circulated about the case.[17] The sexual element remains controversial, but needs to be mentioned.

It is also notable that Thompson and Venables were interviewed by Eileen Vizard (one of the UK's leading child psychiatrists), as were the Edlington brothers.[18] In many ways, the Edlington attack was a carbon copy of the Bulger attack, and in the Edlington case a clear sexual abuse element was identified. The sexual element in the Bulger case remains a matter of some debate, since Thompson and Venables refused to discuss it openly in 1993. The truTV citations show that both Merseyside Police and Vizard had strong suspicions about the sexual element, but ran into difficulties because of the reluctance of the boys to discuss it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There is further information about this in today's News of the World.[19] Detective Superintendent Albert Kirby (now retired) told the paper that it was agreed not to make a big issue of the sexual abuse element at the trial, in order to spare the feelings of Bulger's parents. It was also considered that the information would not have altered the outcome of the trial. Kirby states: "The sexual nature of the crime was dealt with in a delicate way to protect the family but the authorities must have been aware you don't strip someone from the waist down just for the hell of it. If the new allegations against Venables are true then it concerns me that it was not picked up sooner." --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Outdated article audio

I feel that the "listen to this article" sound file is no longer valid for the article as it is 3 years out of date and doesn't hold any of the most recent developments in the Murder of James Bulger case. Should it be removed/updated? Tsange ^►talk 15:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, but the audio versions of Wikipedia articles tend to be few and far between. Since major developments have occurred in this case in the last week, the current audio version is now significantly out of date. Even so, I'm not sure if the current audio version should be removed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, audio articles should be allowed greater leeway since (in a number of ways) it's more laborious to update them. While audio articles may have difficulty keeping up with the fast pace of current events and recent edits, it's reasonable to grant them more time than would be permitted a written article. Of course, the issue should probably revisited if significant time passes and it's still not updated. --Xaliqen (talk) 02:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

My reverted edit

An edit I made got reverted, "a 2.5 miles walk" is gramatically incorrect, it should be "a 2.5 mile walk", I got rid of the formula as as fair as I could see there was no way to make it gramatically correct and keep the formula. Will Bradshaw (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"a walk of 2.5 miles" would work, and we prefer to let the template do the maths. Rodhullandemu 19:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It's still odd syntax though, it's fine to use the template if it can do it correctly but if it can't isn't it best to do it without? Will Bradshaw (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Adding "adj=on" to the template turns it into adjectival form, which now seems to work. Rodhullandemu 19:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Venables "not to face new trial"

This morning's News of the World reports that the government is considering not bringing charges against Venables over the new allegations.[20] This repeats what other newspapers said earlier in the week, but the quote from a government advisor is revealing: "There is a drive to persuade the Justice Secretary and the Crown Prosecution Service not to charge Venables as it would provide everyone with the easier option to manage. However there is a strong feeling that this is too little too late. Mr Straw should have taken a harder line from the start but now the genie is out of the bottle, causing a frenzy which is proving a nightmare to keep a lid on." A new trial is now looking unlikely, but the NOTW story does not say specifically that there will be no trial, which makes it unsuitable as a source for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The NOTW in general is unsuitable as a source of anything for any article. raseaC^{talk to me} 11:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but they seem to have talked off the record to a government advisor/civil servant. It is similar to other newspaper reports which suggest that Venables is unlikely to face a new trial. For one thing, The Sun and the Mirror have already given enough specific information to make guaranteeing his anonymity almost impossible. This is why the second Baby P trial nearly collapsed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem with the general public: they're fucking stupid. They're the ones that wanted the information, the tabloids gave them what they wanted, now they'll be the ones to complain when he walks away (with another new identity if any of the 'outings' have been anywhere near correct). raseaC^{talk to me} 11:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Venables "to spend at least 12 months in prison"

The case is the front page story in today's Sun, with a source claiming that Venables will stay in prison for at least twelve months before his case is heard by a parole panel.[21] What the story does not say is whether he will face a new trial, with the current indications being that the Ministry of Justice has kicked this idea into the long grass.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Venables is again the front page lead in today's Sun.[22] It reports that he is learning to play the guitar in prison, and "He quite often knocks out a version of Wonderwall."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

They can basically print what they want from their "sources". No one is going to bring a libel case agains them. --Pontificalibus (talk) 07:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not going in the article, partly because of sourcing issues, but also because it is not very notable anyway. The story from the Isle of Man will probably be added when Dale is sentenced.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Two newspaper stories today: the front page of the Daily Mirror reports "Suicide fear as pills found in Jon Venables' prison cell" [23]. These were Co-codamol. The Daily Mail has "Jon Venables' 'luxury' cell: Killer 'treated to widescreen TV, video games and personal gym in prison'" [24]. This article also suggests that a decision on new charges will be made "within weeks", and notes: "Should Venables stand trial, the case could be the subject of unprecedented reporting restrictions to protect his new identity. The logistics of how the prosecution would be managed will be considered when a decision on charges has been made, legal sources said." WP:CRYSTAL here, so we'll have to wait and see.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Isle of Man court case

This has been in the news: "A 19-year-old man who posted a Facebook message claiming a B&Q worker in the Isle of Man was one of James Bulger's killers has had his sentencing adjourned for reports. Wayne Vincent Dale, of Ballacannell Estate in Lonan, admitted using provoking behaviour, and another charge of theft."[25][26] Dale is believed to be the first person to be convicted for spreading false rumours about the new identities of Thompson or Venables. He will be sentenced later this month, which may be worth mentioning in the article when it happens.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Dale received a three month suspended sentence.[27] This is a cautionary tale for anyone thinking of using the Internet to accuse another person of being a "paedo" etc. It could lead to criminal action or a libel lawsuit.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Bulger's fingers "cut off with scissors"

Re this edit. This is one of the classic myths about the case circulated through chain letters. Here it is on Facebook, and here it is on the The Army Rumour Service. The reality of the case is bad enough, and this claim is junk.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Separate article for Venables

Since his recent arrest, press coverage of Venables has been through the roof. He has now been convicted of two unrelated crimes, and he has certainly received far more press coverage than Thompson. I propose that Venables have his own article, rather than having material here which deviates from the original issue: the murder of James Bulger. Jplarkin (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Venables would fail WP:ONEEVENT for a separate BLP, since beyond his link to the murder of James Bulger in 1993, he has received very little coverage.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

He does appear to meet WP:PERP on the other hand... --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to see a separate article going beyond stub class, or repeating what is already available here. A BLP needs to be a rounded look at a person's life.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. In Venables' case, there are suppression orders that prevent the release of all kinds of information that would ordinarily appear in a BLP. Writing a rounded BLP, with biographical details other than his criminal history, would actually be illegal! - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Support forking Jon Venables. I completely agree that Venables should have his own article, and came to this talk page to propose exactly that. The fact that his biography would describe him as a misfit and criminal is because he is, verifiably, a misfit and criminal. The fact that his BLP would be negative is not a reason to fail to give him his own article. Venables has received extensive news coverage over 3 decades now. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has articles of hundreds of people whose sole notability is their crimes. Of course such articles are negative, but they can still be neutral. He has committed different offences, years apart; he qualifies for his own article. The recent coverage mentions Bulger's murder, because that is what he is known for. However, the coverage centres on his more recent offending. Jim Michael (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

See also the section below. This case presents almost unique BLP issues, because of the long running court order preventing the new identities of Thompson or Venables from being revealed. The article could do with expanding on the boys' backgrounds, but there is not much to go on from reliable sources. This Daily Mail article contains some useful background material about both boys' families, although it does mention the link with Child's Play 3, which was rejected by Merseyside Police and the Home Office at the time. Before starting a separate BLP for Jon Venables, one of the priorities would be to find some reliably sourced additional background material, rather than simply repeating what is available in this article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Parents of the killers

There does not appear to be much information about the home lives and family of the killers in this article. Such information would definitely be relevant in understanding the events, especially considering the killers' ages. Their home lives may very well have played an important, if not defining, role in explaining why they did such a terrible thing. I realise for legal reasons the identities of the parents are secret, but is there really no information about them? For example, do they come from a poor/working class/middle class background? --86.146.160.204 (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Both boys had troubled upbringings. This article has useful information, so it has been added to the external links section.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Venables "second new identity"

Some of the newspapers have gone into crystal ball territory by claiming that Venables will be given a second new identity when he leaves prison. Here is what Harry Fletcher, assistant general secretary of the probation union, Napo, said: "At the moment my understanding is there are no plans to give him another new identity because he might disclose it. It's a questionable use of resources." [28] The new identity/waste of taxpayers' money angle has been popular in the tabloids, but there is no reliable evidence about what will happen yet, so it should not be added to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Red Balloon Centre Appeal

This was moved to the external links because it has WP:TOPIC and WP:NOTNEWS issues in the main body of the article. The wording of the news story at [29] is also somewhat odd: "The late King of Pop, Michael Jackson, gave his permission for a group of Merseyside performers to release Heal The World to support the James Bulger Red Balloon Centre Appeal.", which makes it sound like they had to contact him at a séance for permission. Presumably he was contacted and gave permission before his death in June 2009.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Re: this edit. Strictly speaking, this is not a biographical article, so infobox person is not the ideal template. Rather than edit warring, could we have a consensus to use infobox news event?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the person infobox is more useful - the article is about the murder of a person, and there is no restriction on using a person infobox only for biographies. We use the infobox that better displays the information we want to convey. Most other murder articles also go with the person infobox e.g. Murder of Imette St. Guillen, Murder of Melanie Hall, Murder of Joanna Yeates.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Bulger killer Jon Venables "had sex with female prison worker before release"

This is in the newspapers today, based on a story in The Sunday Times Magazine. The use of phrases like "it has been claimed" and "allegedly" look like classic WP:WEASEL, but worth noting anyway.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

According to this Daily Mirror story "Jon Venables was 17 when he had the fling with the woman who was responsible for his care at the Red Bank Secure Unit in Merseyside. The woman – meant to be a “substitute parent” for Venables – was suspended after being accused of sexual misconduct. She did not ­return to her job." In this form the story has WP:BLP issues, since accusations are not guilt per WP:ALLEGED.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

There are WP:BLP problems with including this, as no-one was disciplined and nothing was ever proven. The article is better off without this, as it is the sort of thing that newspapers print, but is is an unsupported claim.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am happy to leave it out if it is a possible contravention of Wikipedia's rules, but I will argue that my source is very reliable and I actually wanted to make additional edits giving more details about Venables' life in detention. It is not just an unsupported claim in a tabloid. Yesterday's Sunday Times carried a seven-page article written by David James Smith. Smith has followed the Bulger case since 1993 when he was commissioned to write a book about it; he attended every day of the suspects' trial, and over the past 18 years has gained a wide breadth of knowledge from government officials, former senior staff at Venables' secure unit, relatives of Venables; he was given access to the running sheets which recorded every detail of Venables' life at the secure unit, and has been given further information by Malcolm Stevens (formerly the home secretary's professional advisor for young offenders) and Sir David Omand. Smith writes that Venables' sexual encounter was corroborated by five well-placed independent sources, including a manager at his secure unit at the time. His article also confirms that the female staff member involved was suspended and never permitted to return. As I say, I ran out of time yesterday, but would like to make use of this thorough and reliable source to improve the element of this article relating to Bulger's killers' lives in detention. Thoughts? --TBM10 (talk) 09:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The Sunday Times is a reliable source, but WP:BLP becomes involved, particularly as nobody was ever formally investigated or charged. I held off on adding this because the tabloids were having a field day on something that looked like unprovable hearsay. The article could say something like "In April 2011, the Sunday Times Magazine claimed that Venables had a relationship etc". This would be clearer and fairer than making a claim which was never formally proven.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I will re-read the article and add some info later. You can make any revisions or deletions after, as you're probably more familiar with WP:BLP than I am! --TBM10 (talk) 10:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The Sunday Times Magazine article is interesting, but there is a risk of copyright violation if large chunks of it are incorporated into the article. It also makes the article somewhat top heavy in favour of Venables.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

TBM10 makes a solid case for the inclusion of this information. It comes from a reliable source. It would be very unfortunate if Wikipedia's editors felt they could not include notable information that is the subject of considerable coverage in the (non-gutter) press. Not everything dodgy that happens in the world results in formal proceedings, but that doesn't stop it from being encyclopaedic. Terminal emulator (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The wording of the Sunday Times article is very cautious. Although staff at the centre believed that the incident occurred, nobody was investigated or charged. Given the seriousness of the allegations, there were claims of a cover-up [30] which the article should probably mention.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Foreign holidays

The case is back in the newspapers, with claims that both Thompson and Venables have been on foreign holidays.[31][32]. I held off on adding this to the article, because it does not add greatly to an understanding of the murder. The current version of the article has WP:TOPIC issues, as it is giving undue weight to the events in the post 2001 period. With the exception of Venables' return to prison in 2010 on child porn charges, nothing that Thompson or Venables have done since 2001 is hugely notable. The tabloid press has an ongoing fascination with the case, but Wikipedia is not journalism and guidelines such as WP:BLP apply.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

While I think the article should indeed document the more notable "post-prison" events of Venables & Thompson's lives, as people do have an interest in them, I agree that this story does not warrant a mention. I'm surprised it made the front pages, to be honest. --TBM10 (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

BBC television documentary

On 21 April 2011, BBC1 broadcast "Jon Venables: What Went Wrong?".[33] This is available on iPlayer for another seven days.[34] I haven't had a chance to watch this yet, but it seems to cover broadly the same ground as the recent Sunday Times article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Venables "identity revealed"

The story in The Sun on 4 May 2011 [35] adds little to what is known already. It uses WP:WEASEL language (allegedly, said to, etc) so it fails WP:V. From Wikipedia's point of view, this sort of story is unhelpful, as it could lead to innocent people being named (this has already happened) and edits being revdeleted. Please don't add any blog-fuelled rumours to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Some more thoughts here: The photo being touted as Venables has a watermark saying "www.phojoe.com". Interestingly, phojoe.com has an "age progression" feature for photos here. I'm beginning to have my doubts about whether this photo is genuine, as it does look rather photoshopped. Anyway, please don't add links to it in the article, as it is not reliably sourced.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It's official

There has been a "serious security breach" which will require Venables to have a new identity.[36] This relates to various incidents in the blogs which cannot be mentioned on Wikipedia and will be revdeleted if they are.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I have been able to locate the two photographs on a Facebook group. I have to ask, would Wikipedia be in breach of the injunction if it merely outlined what is already widely known in the public domain? --TBM10 (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Facebook is not a reliable source, nor is Twitter or any blog. Please don't mention the specifics here, no good can come of it. The two sources in the article from Sky News and the Liverpool Echo give enough information.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This story from the Express and Echo in Exeter is clearly referring to what has happened here, but it may be hard to add it to the article, because it does not make an explicit link. Although the name of this man is not hard to find, he is now a non-person in the UK media and would be revdeleted if mentioned here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at your link and noticed this "He added: "There is no gagging order on me, I'm not the media."

That's interesting because surely the gagging order was on all publication not just the media?

Thanks 81.137.240.118 (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It's all a bit weird, because this is the man who set off the current furore. The story says "The man, who the Echo cannot name for legal reasons, said the photos had been viewed by one million people since they were published. His website also cannot be named due to a gagging order protecting Venables' identity." However, it goes on to say "Relatives of James Bulger have welcomed the publication of the images. A court order bans their identification for life, despite outrage that families may be put at risk. A spokesman for Devon and Cornwall Police said they were not investigating the publication of the images by an Exeter man and had received no complaints from the public." The man's website is down at the moment, but the information on it has since leaked out into the blogs, which is why Venables is being given a second new identity.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Although there have been reports in the tabloids that the Exeter man also plans to name Thompson's new identity [37][38] this should not be added for the time being as it has WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL issues. Let's wait and see on this one.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional tabloid reporting [39] alleges that Venables is said to be hopeful that his recent exposure will result in his relocation abroad. Probably not worthy of note in the 'new identity' subsection yet, though. --TBM10 (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The website of the Exeter man is back up again after being down for several days. The page that set off the Venables controversy is apparently still there, but it is now password protected.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

There has been fresh media coverage, with a report of a photograph on the web showing Venables at a party on 12 February 2009, the 16th anniversary of the murder.[40] The image has been circulating the web since early May 2011.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)